How is going from feudalism straight to socialism even supposed to work?

How is going from feudalism straight to socialism even supposed to work?
The fuck was that shit?

Other urls found in this thread:

Well Russia at the time was still borderline feudalism so…

It's not. The USSR was a bourgeois revolution all along. They just paid lip service to socialism. ML states are too stupid to realize this and/or see the opportunity to similarly seize power for a few. Lenin and the rest of the Bolshies were porkies.

That's not what was happening.

Russia was SEMI-feudal. That is, the traditionally feudal classes still played a large role in economic/political functioning, but the capitalist class and the capitalist productive forces had already been built to a large extent.

Have you even read these? If you went by these you should have supported the Green Armies, not the Bolsheviks.

Tbh it theoretically wouldn't have been hard to implement a kind of agrarian socialism if the peasants had collectivized the land instead of just carving up the big estates among themselves. There is no real reason why socialism must necessarily be industrial or develop straight out of capitalism, although it clearly lends itself to that trend.

The Bolsheviks should have worked with the peasants to socialize agriculture outright instead of just endorsing a free for all which turned them into a new class of agrarian petty bourg.

Read Rosa.

You could have gone straight from feudalism to anarchism without much of an issue.

GTFO with this garbage take unless you can give evidence to support that the USSR had surplus value extraction, M-C-M cycle, private property, or any of the other distinct features of a capitalist economy.

It didn't Even really have socialism though
It basically just got to a stage of authoritarian social-democracy (the transitional stage or whatever Leninist call it) and then it stalled out

Socialism HAS to develop out of industrial production because industrial production is the primary sphere where the capital vs labor battle happens. Peasants only have an interest in socialism so far as it helps them maintain their own land ownership from the big bourgeois; that is, to escape the fate of becoming part of the proletariat. This is why "agrarian socialism" has been, and always will be, utopian nonsense.

And you could see it during the Russian Civil War. The people fighting for agrarian socialism (the Green Armies) were openly reactionary proto-fascists who had no interest in the emancipation of society and merely wanted a bigger piece of the land pie for themselves.

Yes. Did you? Because I doubt you read them in the 10 or so minutes between my post and yours. Regardless of that the idea that I need to support either the Bolsheviks or the Greens a hundred years later is hilarious. I posted them to share how Marx thought a society with a large peasant commune could "skip" the capitalist stage by implementing the existing productive technology in a communal fashion.

I've read them before you retard, not everyone here is illiterate. The Bolsheviks knowingly went by the official historical materialism line, Lenin even blamed the Russian bourgeoisie for being too slow with their capitalism in one of his pre-coup works.

In part, because a major facet of the transition to socialism is the abolition of private property. You don't need to be an advanced capitalist society in order to do that.

That is indeed what happened. That doesn't really change the fact that Marx thought it could be accomplished. Whether he was right or not is up to individual interpretation. You obviously don't agree and I don't necessarily agree with it either.

Why were they funded by capitalist porkies just like the Nazis if it wasn't a porky's revolution

Provide sources. The entirety of the capitalist west and Japan was united against the bolshevik government during and after the civil war, isolating them economically, and sending in troops to fight for the whites. This is well documented and agreed upon by bourgeois and materialist historians alike. I'm not just going to take your word for this accusation.

If you're talking about lend-lease, that doesn't compare to the level of collusion that occurred between porkies and nazi germany before the war even started.

barracks communism, of course



marx was a mistake

They had no alternative. At least the anarchists stood for something, the Greens just wanted more land and less politics.

There are very few places in the world that aren't already in the midst of industrial capitalism, so I don't really see why this is a big issue for you.

issue is weren't.


oh yes your well known marxian infallible crystal ball and counterfactual analyses, never has it misled any one of you plucky consistent realists before. if the fascists accomplished nothing else as to their role in this grand drama of history, and did some very bad things too, the consolation prize is at least they liquidated some marxists. not nearly enough, as you're still out here running your mouth with impunity, rather than turned into compost, which at least might have served someone some good.


Exactly. It's a purely historical issue and I don't really see the relevance (if any) it has today.
They were reacting more against collectivization than anything else. I mean, the grain seizures were also an issue, but it was a fucking civil war in a backwater shithole, what the hell were the Bolsheviks supposed to do?
Roll over and let the Whites institute their "parliamentary" monarchy?

In other words, they were reacting against socialist measures.
Fascism was a petty-bourgeois actually reactionary movement to save and reinstate failing capitalist states. The Green Armies were a petty-bourgeois actually reactionary movement to save and reinstate a failing capitalist state. I mean, really, the similarities are amusing.

you mongoloids only have like 3 categories of analysis and they all wind up proving marxism right, no matter how much you failed to stop capitalism by your masterstroke of defeating it by erecting it.
it wasn't socialism or anything close you pig.


of course you don't. do you all have frontal lobe damage or something? how many psychiatric medications are you on? are you socially retarded? terrible family life? toxoplasmosis? explain yourselves. how can (a small percentage in actuality) of you seem able to digest (a small range of) fairly difficult books and still wind up so completely mentally defective?
fucking kill themselves would have been a start.

This might literally be the maddest I've ever seen someone on this board get, holy fuck.

obviously, or you wouldn't be a marxist.

fucking kek

won't say what else is wrong with you? it's obviously at least one of those, and "gender dysphoria" on the list goes without saying. it should be a bingo.

Well, if nothing else, Stalin showed that, materially, it is possible to skip bourgeois liberalism. Unfortunately, the superstructure was neglected.

Not really, given he was working off of Lenin's attempts to get bourgeois liberalism going first

If we accept Historical materialism then no it isn't possible, because socialism the negation of capitalism, everything self contained in the new society already exists under the surface. Russia had proto-capitalism before the revolution, thus they could only ever achieve proto-socialism (lowest stage communism).

Lenin wasn't attempting to "get bourgeois liberalism going first", he was trying to use a workers state to play the progressive role that bourgeois liberalism had played in the advanced capitalist countries, i.e., solving capitalist problems using socialist methods.

Oh yes "scientific liberalism" and centrally planned capitalism is much better.

well in the Soviet Union they went through a phase of state capitalism before transitioning to socialism during the Stalin era

If you abolish the value form, like by collectivising your network of villages, the farmers, thatchers, miners, textile makers, blacksmiths etc all providing their services for free, and receiving the service of others for free, then that is communism no matter if there was capitalism there first or not surely

Kampuchea was communist, brought to you by leftcom gang

wait, so why wasn't it? because eradicating reactionary enemies of the people makes you queasy? that's just the superstructure (eggs) reacting to the base (omelette).

Right I forgot that if peasants try to set up communes and coordinate agricultural production with a central government then the ghost of Marx will rise up and tell them they are being undialectical and have to stop.

Explain to me why agrarian socialism is impossible? Industrial society certainly lends itself to the development of socialism, but I don't see how socialist organization in an agrarian society is impossible.

in what way did this actually happen though? as we can see in reality, it didn't.

It just does


It's called NEP OP. Lenin realized that Russia wasn't industrialized enough after the destruction wrought by the Civil War and implemented a limited market economy for gradual industrial growth. He argued that with the extremely strict monitoring of the revolutionary government over the economy there would be no exploitation and bourgeois subversion. I'd like to think he would've been right if not for his death and the powerstruggle within the party.

you aren't nazbols don't force your own meme

As far as I can discern, NEP's role wasn't superstructural at all and not exactly "create capitalism's material conditions" as it's commonly states, but rather a desperate attempt to kickstart the economy. They were in full control of the much-coveted means of production, but WW1, the Revolution and the Civil War left them no capital to actually get the economic cycle started, especially with foreign powers refusing to trade, blockading etc. Essentially, they had to count on State-supervised private and foreign enterpreneurship to generate wealth then tax it in order to get that initial capital needed. This was particularly important in order to secure good foreign currency, seeing as the ruble at the time wasn't what you might call rock-solid.

Interestingly, tho changing the superstructure wasn't a goal, it did actually happen, and the 20s were considerably more socially liberal and less repressive than Stalin's full-on reign. A small petty-bougie class even started to develop, the NEPmen.

t. reddit gang